Search for: "State v. Maker"
Results 3341 - 3360
of 4,684
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Aug 2011, 1:14 am
Here is the abstract: Nation states are under attack by non-state actors; whether non-state actors present an existential threat to nation states is debatable, probably unlikely. [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 3:08 pm
Justice Thomas and the majority rejected this argument, holding that generic drug makers could not comply with both federal and state law, and therefore preemption protected them from liability. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 11:42 pm
: LG Electronics Inc v Sony Europe Ltd, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc and Sony Corporation (IPKat) Bullying anti-piracy lawyers fined and suspended (TorrentFreak) Internet abuzz with claims that UK police picked up the wrong Topiary (ArsTechnica) United States US Patents iOS devs put out a call to unite against Lodsys, other patent trolls (ArsTechnica) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Exceptional case after remand: Eon-Net… [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 7:30 am
See Patch v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 5:41 am
This essay explores the possible dual readings of AT&T v. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 5:00 am
Janus Capital Grp. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 10:46 pm
In McCarley v. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:25 am
In NewsBin 1 (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and others v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch)) Fox, together with other film makers and distributors, sued NewzBin, "a British Usenet indexing website notable for its introduction of new technologies and search techniques that aid users by facilitating access to content on Usenet" (per Wikipedia), for copyright infringement. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 7:00 am
Related articles The Calls Grow Louder For Obama To Ignore Congress, And Raise The Debt Ceiling Unilaterally (businessinsider.com) United States Constitution (archives.gov) Perry V. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 4:37 am
See McZeal v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:58 am
It is a general point as to the policy considerations underlying Parliament’s development of the law in order to protect the designers and makers of three-dimensional artefacts from unfair competition. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 3:05 pm
Section 509(a) The case is Grantham v. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 3:12 am
Further, in Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563, the U.S. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 11:17 am
SAYS, United States v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
Tuberville v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
Tuberville v. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 10:28 am
” (Dushkin v. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 8:44 am
The plaintiffs in PLIVA, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2011, 7:33 am
That choice led to a dispute in Mace v. [read post]
21 Jul 2011, 2:45 am
Supreme Court Smith, R. v [2011] UKSC 37 (20 July 2011) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Barkshire & Ors v R. [2011] EWCA Crim B3 (20 July 2011) Hewgill & Ors, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 1778 (20 July 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Interactive Investor Trading Ltd v City Index Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 837 (20 July 2011) AQ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 833 (20 July 2011) Drake v… [read post]
